Just a quickie to support several ongoing conversations:
Road Map – the terrain, the lie of the land, the landscape, the features of the context space, possible multiple destinations that different plans might aim to arrive at. Only the topological / schematic logic is important – that the destinations exist, and that they are linked functionally – some logical ordering in how they would need to be achieved – if there were agreed plan(s) / project(s). Obviously the choice of what to show on the RoadMap always presumes some worthwhile set of objectives.
Strategy – the “what and why” rationale and an outline “how” plan for a chosen (set of) main target destination(s)
Plan – an actual plan, intent and project resources organised to do specific things to deliver specific destination(s). A specific route through the road map to reach the given strategic objective.
Tactic – any other what, why and how priority actions alongside the plan or strategy, especially if they don’t self-evidently fit their strategic logic and objectives.
There is no once and for all hard-line definitions of what falls within each of these, but they are distinct at any time. Once a tactic is elf-evidently part of the plan or strategy, then it is. Until then it’s not. Plans can be strategic and/or tactical. Once specific strategic objective(s) and or plan(s) are agreed, then a road-map can be redrafted to reflect or emphasise only that chosen scope, etc. But what is unsaid in a given context remains unsayable and is always more significant than what is not.